History, Geography, & MilitaryDiscuss Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000 at the Political Forums; Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of ...

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.

Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.

"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.

Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.

Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.

Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.

"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said. Another source said the actual total could be as high as 5,000 when additional support personnel are included.

A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.

I (and 99.999% of the the public) don't know what's a good number for troops retention in Iraq, but I do know this...

The commanders in the field know what it should be better than any politician, and when administrations tell the military to go f**k themselves, it's obviously a political ploy to the base...

I (and 99.999% of the the public) don't know what's a good number for troops retention in Iraq, but I do know this...

The commanders in the field know what it should be better than any politician, and when administrations tell the military to go f**k themselves, it's obviously a political ploy to the base...

Bull****, They work for him not the other way around. Being in uniform doesn't make your decisions always the best/ Look at history and you will see plenty of examples. The military didn't want to do the mission that got OBL from somwe accounts. Give it up ragging the guy all the time. Obama has done well by our military over and over again. There are always some who disagree. Patreaus (apparently the greatest of all generals) said the surge would solve the Afghanistan situation. Someone apparently forgot to tell the enemy that Patreaus is a general.

Bull****, They work for him not the other way around. Being in uniform doesn't make your decisions always the best/ Look at history and you will see plenty of examples. The military didn't want to do the mission that got OBL from somwe accounts. Give it up ragging the guy all the time. Obama has done well by our military over and over again. There are always some who disagree. Patreaus (apparently the greatest of all generals) said the surge would solve the Afghanistan situation. Someone apparently forgot to tell the enemy that Patreaus is a general.

..and yet it was only when the top brass started listening to the guys on the ground that we made real progress in Iraq. The people who are there every day understand the situation FAR better than the pols. on The Hill will ever understand it. They need to be listened to and if there's a strong concensus about a course of action, then that needs to be taken into account and not ignored. For my .02, this sounds like repeating one of the same mistakes that we made early in OIF - approaching the situation from a political angle and ignoring the feeedback from the ground troops. Only now instead of putting Iraqi politicians in charge of making the decisions, they are putting D.C. politicians in charge. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

..and yet it was only when the top brass started listening to the guys on the ground that we made real progress in Iraq. The people who are there every day understand the situation FAR better than the pols. on The Hill will ever understand it. They need to be listened to and if there's a strong concensus about a course of action, then that needs to be taken into account and not ignored. For my .02, this sounds like repeating one of the same mistakes that we made early in OIF - approaching the situation from a political angle and ignoring the feeedback from the ground troops. Only now instead of putting Iraqi politicians in charge of making the decisions, they are putting D.C. politicians in charge. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.

Sometimes the POTUS is right and sometimes the Generals are right and sometimes the troops on the ground are right. But the POTUS is CIC all the time. Obama has done well.

Sometimes the POTUS is right and sometimes the Generals are right and sometimes the troops on the ground are right.

The POTUS is NEVER right when he goes against the commanders on the ground...

NE...VER...

And you will never convince me that the commanders thought "A" and were wrong and the POTUS thought "B" and was correct...

The POTUS can ONLY be right when he listens to the commanders on the ground instead if spitting on their opinion...

The only exception to that rule is when the CiC himself has VAST military experience and has been through what needs to be decided...and even then he wouldn't disagree with the commanders on the ground...

Ans as far as "military experience" goes, we have a POTUS that wouldn't make it the Kiss Army let alone a real one...

The POTUS is NEVER right when he goes against the commanders on the ground...

NE...VER...

And you will never convince me that the commanders thought "A" and were wrong and the POTUS thought "B" and was correct...

The POTUS can ONLY be right when he listens to the commanders on the ground instead if spitting on their opinion...

The only exception to that rule is when the CiC himself has VAST military experience and has been through what needs to be decided...and even then he wouldn't disagree with the commanders on the ground...

Ans as far as "military experience" goes, we have a POTUS that wouldn't make it the Kiss Army let alone a real one...

It's the Presdents job to set objectives in war and the military to figure out how to carry it out. So you think Lincoln should not have told McClellen what to do? Really?

It's the Presdents job to set objectives in war and the military to figure out how to carry it out. So you think Lincoln should not have told McClellen what to do? Really?

The OBJECTIVE is NOT "Let's have 3000 troops"...

The OBJECTIVE is a secure Iraq...

If Lincoln asked McClellan to secure victory and McClellan says "We won't be able to do it if you only allow us 3000 troops", Lincoln would NOT have said "Well do it anyway! I have my political base to think about!!"...

If Lincoln asked McClellan to secure victory and McClellan says "We won't be able to do it if you only allow us 3000 troops", Lincoln would NOT have said "Well do it anyway! I have my political base to think about!!"...